Ready to try vinyl

That listen was like 25-years ago. I don't remember the specifics, but I do remeber the Denons at DB audio has a similiar signature. I believe the argument was directly connecting a motor to the spindle was conterproductive as we are talking about groove modulations that are less than human hair.

I just want to mention that I heard the mega-dollar Nakamichi direct-drive turntable. I thought that it obviously sounded like a direct-drive turntable(inferior to belt-drives, in my mind). It was the record-centering Nakamichi($10,000?).

Jean,
For heaven's sake please keep quiet about Eratos. Are you trying to start ANOTHER price war?!

All,
Eratos suck. They have noisy surfaces, compressed dynamics and are rolled off at both frequencey extremes. Not even a DD Walker could make them sound good.

[Sneaks back to his latest Vivaldi/Scimone acquisition.]

Well I see this thread certainly kept going during my absence, these types of debates will occur again and again, and perhaps thankfully infrequently. Thanks Raul for recognizing my point in referring to the history of astronomy, and for always questioning!: people are blind to fundamental assumptions, which being invisible, are not investigated and not questioned. People respond emotionally and not logically to these comforting assumptions being questioned, as in the end we most of us prefer stability (;-)). Thanks to Musicdoc and Albertporter as well for their support, you're both gentlemen. I can see Albert's point that a true fair comparison between drive systems is not possible due to the integral nature of his turntable (I certainly wouldn't want to touch that animal), and am very grateful to Albert for his support and fun spirit, but I have to say that Albert, you are being somewhat disengenuous (picture finger-wagging auntie gently scolding) in stating that "In spite of my admiration of the Lenco and Garrard idler wheel designs, there is no contest between these and the Walker." Since the Lenco was mounted with a humble stock Decca International (with its stock thick tin wiring and plastic frcition-fit pieces) and Shure V15VxMR while your Walker was mounted with a state-of-the-art air-bearing tonearm, cables and a Koetsu Rosewood Signature Platinum (not to mention other discrepancies) then this statement is hardly meaningful, is it, something which should have been pointed out. I mean, if you were to stage a contest between your Walker and a SME 30 and mount the SME with a Decca International and Shure V15, would people stand quietly by (as they do now) and simply accept your verdict it doesn't even come close to the Walker?

At that time as well, I could not even convince anyone to mount a humble Rega on the Lenco to give it a fair trial by my peers, and so was forced to track down and publicise the extremely cheap Decca International tonearms, which at time sold for 25 euros, which indeed got the ball rolling. When bowled over by the resultant sound, many wrongly attributed this greatness to the tonearm, and not the platform: the Lenco. I started to kick their asses to stop playing with the cheap budget stuff and stretch the Lenco's legs with at least a Rega, which finally resulted in the following comment from an intrepid Lenco-er which got THAT ball rolling: "And yes...it sounds fantastic, blows my STD305D away, quieter background, enormous controlled bass, incredible detail, just altogether jaw droppingly good...and it don't look bad either!." For context, the STD supplanted a Linn LP12. Finally, the best tonearm/cartridge ever mounted - Graham 2.2/Benz Micro - received the following report: "Well, as I indicated previously, we have installed a Graham 2.2/IC-70 cable on our latest creation, an L75. At the advice of Jean, we went whole-hog and mounted my Benz Micro Reference2 Copper, a cartridge custom built by Mr. Lukaschek himself. We have now spun about 15 LP’s with this combination...This is, with doubt, the best combo I’ve ever had in my system and one of the best I’ve ever heard in any system with remotely comparable components. Of course, the slam and pacing of the Lenco is there in spades. I was not, however, prepared for the expansive soundstage which goes well beyond my speakers and into the side yard. There is a ton of detail without being anything close to analytical. The midrange is very sweet and female vocals are just a gas! From those who have used the Graham with other tables, the one very minor complaint of some is a hair bit of lightness in the bass. Not in this front end. I have heard the Graham 2.2 now on about 8 different tables and I’ve never heard it sound better. A real winner in every respect. A spoiler, actually." For context, the fellow's previous 'table, which he subsequently sold, was a Nottingham Spadedeck. I trot out these reports occasionally (and new ones keep coming in) as they constitute the evidence in my experiment/challenge.

At the time you asked me which way to go, and I wrote you "for musicality go for the Decca, for information go for the Rega" (or something along those lines), as I fully understood you had no real interest in pitting the Lenco against your Fabulous Beast but were in it for the fun aspect, and for providing that shining example kudos! Now I am extremely grateful for the support and good humour you provided in the early days of the vulnerable thread (in fact I miss your witty contributions, I still laugh at the "pillow-fluffer" comment), but have to point out that the Lenco has indeed humbled quite a few highly-regarded current title-holders when armed with nothing better than "mid-fi" tonearms such as the Regas and such-like, (and even then someone recently reported a Lenco traded blows in an extremely sophisticated set-up with a SME 30 armed with an exotic MC while the Lenco was armed with the usual budget items). Barring that, if a Lenco armed with a RB300 can stay ahead of a VPI TNT, what can it do if it were armed with a good air-bearing tonearm, such as the Walker's "father", the Maplenoll, or with a sota unipivot such as the Graham 2.2, and a Koetsu mounted to that? I'm not saying it will beat or even match the Walker (though in some ways, such as drive, it might), but as I wrote long ago, if it takes a 40K-$50 belt-drive in order to clearly defeat a Lenco (i.e. if this can only be achieved at ruinous cost), then what does this say about the belt-drive drive system?

Now I would truly like to see such a showdown, I don't think making everything absolutely even is necessary to make the point (and since it can't be done then the point is moot), but I am not going to use my [limited] travel money for such a venture, preferring instead to concentrate my hearing on the sound of belled goats and lapping waves in the Greek hillsides above the Aegean, or indeed beer in the heart of Berlin. I could however someday send an emissary in the form of a specially-built Lenco, or one of the Lenco followers nearer could take their own. If in the process we find that the Lenco has a ceiling of, say $20K equivaklent belt-drive, then we know this and I finally know what the upper limits are. In the process, the idler-wheel is re-instated as a serious drive system with its own set of strengths and weaknesses (which certainly was not the case a year ago, so we have learned something already). The DD afficionados also point to certain strengths over belt-drive (which again exposes weaknesses in the system which it is wiser to acknowledge than wish away if true progress is what we want). Anyway, even the fact this is being discussed is good news, that people understand that something must be tested in order to be fairly judged, and to keep an open mind. Until the next Great Debate, enjoy spinning that oh-so-lovely vinyl all, and I would say always suspect your unseen assumptions (and those of others, such as the chemical/food companies), use that little-used muscle in these days of reality television and Disney-run/corporate-run newscasts, the brain, we have never, EVER, needed it more! Now, back to my lovely Lenco/Rega/Denon for some more of that Baroque, which perhaps the Lenco favours, I'm so obssessed with it these days, gotta love those Eratos! Sorry to those who have hung on so far for such a long post, too late to delete, the smart ones are drinking beer.

I've learned more in the 30 minutes it took me to get through this thread than the months of reading about various TT designs. Thanks to all those who have been participating. I own a belt driven table, I'm pleased with it but I had been considering a dd Technics table for some mixing, perhaps I'll go head to head with my table just for fun.

Actually in a "sort of related" area,my friend Sid Marks makes a very strong case for the "first pressing" syndrome,which is, in and of itself, a very valid area of getting much better performance without doing a thing to the set-up!!

There are numerous variables involved in analog "Heaven"!No parameter is perfect.

Sid's point,and he is also a FANATIC,with a capital "F",is if we start with the earliest pressing available(he actually gets numerous ones,and compares them)you bridge the gap to better sound.I know you all are aware of this,but I have been sort of shocked at how many "early" pressings are "significantly" improved upon,by a slightly earlier one.Who has the time for all this?Not me!However it bridges the performance gap,all the more!!Makes me think, too!

I'm sure ALL you guys read the post,about the Mega Massive,and speed stable,Fly Wheel!!There are a couple of ways to obtain accurate speed.This being one!

Also,as I'm sure the Walker is quite "stable enough for me",though Peter Montcrieff makes a strong arguement for direct drive( unfortuneately he does this in about 100,000 words),anyone NOT happy with his/her Walker can trade me for my NEW SOTA COSMOS sreies III(speed controlled by a very cute,and dead accurate computer/belt config)!!I won't ask any questions,though I do love my Cosmos,I'll still be happy to make that trade!!

BTW--Albert,My COSMOS is ALL BLACK!!How about it???????

Albertporter...I won't debate with you whether existing DD turntables exhibit "cogging", but, speaking as one with some experience with (non-audio) DD precision servos, "cogging" would be a flaw in the design. It is no more inherent to a DD system than to an indirect drive such as a belt or idler wheel. A DD system avoids problems of compliance (belt stetch) or backlash in the torque transmission hardware.

So, what's the new to vinyl dude getting? A $70,000 Walker?

Direct Drive Website. This is a very nice website with lots of fun info and a DD Museum:

http://de.geocities.com/bc1a69/index_eng.html

An arpeggio of gratitude towards Rushton for that lovely and amusing story. (Are you sure it wasn’t Moravec’s gravity-defying Chopin performance that kept your table spinning?) I am but a half-step away from making an appointment with Señor Walker and his table

Regards,

If the government really wanted to do the population a favor, they should can all this bullshit manufacture of the useless flu vaccine–have had it administered twice and caught the flu with even worse symptoms than ever–and find a cure for Elpitis: the dreaded psycho-acoustical condition that brings new meaning to the word bipolar for many of us. (If I am not mistaken, Dante mentions Elpitis affliction as a punishment in the third level of “Hell” and Moses thought about it for one of the Egyptian plagues but at the last minute opted for frogs.)

Why, there I was perfectly content with my perfectly beautiful Audiomeca digital gear when I spot in a closet a Paul Desmond LP that missed the shipment to the Salvation Army many moons ago. I reach in the cover–mind you, with the same care and finger dexterity that I had learned since I started collecting (insert a few more moons here)–and pulled out the black disc. I could swear that as I gazed into the grooves I heard angelic voices and had a bright beam of light wash over me because (as in a trance) I immediately went to the garage where a (cheap) Technics TT–I kept it because I had intended to use it as entertainment for my then-newborn son to watch toys spin on the platter–was quickly put into service using other ancient relics: a Sansui receiver with a phono input and a pair of AR3s.

Well, that was the end (beginning) for me! Desmond’s sax sounded like a...well...sax? Working against me and my resolve was also that the record was in good shape so the dreaded “pops” were not a turnoff. My Elpitist progressed through a B&O, another Technics (it was at this juncture that I discovered Audiogon’s “Oracles of Analog,” an enthusiastic bunch that really fucked me up even worse), an MMF 7 and, finally, a TNT V with a ZYX Airy 1000. Instead of going to fashionable stores to purchase CDs, I am now being spotted in dimly lit backrooms of second-hand shops searching through cartons of LPs or worse, bidding my life away in the click-and-gotcha byways of EBay. Once or twice a year my wife allows me (after swearing that I have taken my medication) a pilgrimage to the holy shrine of New Jersey–the Princeton Record Exchange–where I spend a day and four wallets scavenging for 12-inchers.

Oh no, it doesn’t end there. Sorry. Then there are the so-called “tweaks,” my dear. The LP cleaning machine, the LP covers and dust jackets, the fluids, the brushes, the cabinet(s) that can actually store thousands of these thingies (yes, trust me, it gets to a thousand by the end of the rapture’s first month)...please! Oh, and let’s not forget the phono amp since you outgrow the receiver phono input as the disease accelerates and invades the glands which control common sense.

Welcome and ready to...try vinyl?

" ACCURATE AND HIGHLY CONSTANT SPEED ", ( where everything the same ) do the difference between a belt drive system against a DD system, where the DD system beats the belt drive system.

As I've followed Raul's arguments regarding DD versus belt drive turntables, I was reminded of a story Lloyd Walker tells:

At one of the CES shows, three gentlemen entered Walker Audio's room in which Lloyd was demo'ing his turntable and engaged Lloyd in a very sincere and very animated discussion about belt drive turntables not possibly being able to maintain the speed consistency needed for true state of the art performance. They raised all of the same theoretical arguments Raul presented (and rather than repeat all of these, I encourage you to read the various posts from Raul above). The substance of their point ultimately being that only a servo controlled direct drive turntable could maintain speed accuracy and resulting pitch consistency for true state of the art performance.

In the course of the discussion, all had agreed that sustained notes on a piano were one of the most revealing tests of speed consistency and consequent lack of pitch variation. So, Lloyd puts on a classical piano solo recording on his turntable and they begin to listen. Sounds pretty good, but the three gentlemen continue to argue that without servo control, no turntable can maintain pitch constancy.

At this point, Lloyd is getting a little frustrated. So, he pulls a pair of scissors out of his kit and, right in the middle of the music, CUTS the silk belt. The music continues to play. And for the next 30 seconds the piano performance continues without a motor driving it all and with perfect pitch stability. (End of story)

Personally, I'm a bit of a skeptic. So after hearing this story, I decided to test for myself on my Walker Proscenium turntable (after all, the belt is only a strip of silk tape and is easily replaced). Well..., Ivan Moravec continued to sound just luscious on some delicate Chopin for at least 35 seconds before I could detect any change in pitch here.

Cheers,

Further posts on you impression of your new aquisition would be appreciated. I have a modest Vinyl frontend and wounder wether it would be worth it to upgrade. Although I find the convience of CD still quiet appealing.

I also learned something new a couple weeks ago. The bass is compressed from the original recording because of vinyl limitations. I have yet to A-B an album and CD on my system.

... but then I guess fussiness is the one defining characteristic of a true analog addict.

The unfortunate vinyl neophite who initiated this thread has no doubt been comletely scared away by now by those posters who have hijacked his thread into yet another Raul vs. the World debate on the fine points of analog reproduction which are so far beyond the scope of his question as to be irrelevant. One thing he was right about, however, is the "all the fuss" he has heard over analog. I have heard less fussing from a nursery school full of 5 year olds than on this forum! ;)

Before we can go-on there is one subject that is really important for to do a critical evaluation on TTs and that critical subject is the TONEARM/CARTRIDGE combination: is has to be the same. Albert we have to find how we can run the Walker with a different tonearm. If we can solve this issue, I can give/put two samples of the same tonearm.

Sorry Raul, that is not possible. The Walker tonearm is integrated with the turntable and there is no room to add another arm or anything to mount an arm to. The base of the Walker is stone and I have no interest in drilling into it to mount another tonearm for a test.

I never post that idea, I post : +++++ " A Walker DD system beats a Walker belt drive system .. " +++++

Not according to Lloyd Walker. His opinion of direct drive is the cogging (search for speed) is worse than errors of his air bearing and silk belt drive. Guess that will never be resolved as Walker has no intention of building a direct drive so, we are back to one mans opinion against another mans opinion.

You are secure with your decision and I with mine.

Dear Albert: +++++ " If you don't like my equipment, one of my members must have a speaker you approve of, " +++++

You and any one in this forum know that your speakers and you friend's speakers are great ones, no question about.

Maybe where is more important for our " analog exercise " is first in the phono preamps and second on the amps. But these issues are for our second/third move.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Bring on the tequila!

Dear Albert: I think that if everybody have the right attitude to do that " learning exercise " about the importance of speed accuracy, we will " have " something.

+++++ " . Any comparisons would be between the Walker package.. " +++++ " If anyone want's to challenge the Walker in a "dollar for dollar" match against the Technics, I concede defeat ..." +++++

Albert, the issue is not the Walker and is not a Walker challenge. This is not my idea and I don't think is yours, right?. No body wants to compare a 40K TT against a 1K TT: this will be totally unfair.

Before we can go-on there is one subject that is really important for to do a critical evaluation on TTs and that critical subject is the TONEARM/CARTRIDGE combination: is has to be the same. Albert we have to find how we can run the Walker with a different tonearm. If we can solve this issue, I can give/put two samples of the same tonearm.
There are other issues that we have to solve but I think is better if we solve one by one.

Other thing that I would like to have on this " exercise " is the direct Jeans participation: what do you say Jeans?.
Btw, I think that the ideas/help of anybody in this forum will be happy welcome.

Albert I want to clarify something: +++++ "What got this thread off center were comments that appeared to support the idea that speed accuracy was so important that it surpassed the "whole package" approach... " +++++

I never post that idea, I post : +++++ " A Walker DD system beats a Walker belt drive system .. " +++++

Albert your move.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

my humble take on this is that in fact speed accuracy IS INDISPUTABLY as important as it "seems," and the issue at hand is not the table/arm/cartridge combination, but the table ONLY, and it's one and only function, which is to maintain as stable a speed as is possible to reproduce the time domain of the LP. to compare this to specifications of amplifiers is comparing apples to horse apples IMHO. the key is IMPLEMENTATION (as in all things), and the walker had better be optimized in this respect to justify it's price. to hear a properly implemented/optimized technics, lenco or garrard with the same arm and cartridge would be preferred, and i guess that's where things are going. this is getting exciting!

i would add that jean's lenco thread did not require endorsement by anyone, it has stood on it's own merits and by his (significant and ongoing) efforts since day one. not trying to be overly contentious, but that needed to be said. credit where credit is due.

I think you missed the point. When I posted at the Lenco thread it was very early on with lots of speculation as to the accuracy of Jeans comments. I put my money up, ordered a Lenco off Ebay, ordered a Decca tonearm from Holland, a new EAR 834 phono and Shure cartridge, just from Jean's comments. I even went on to design my own plinth and post it in vertual systems here at Audiogon. I am a supporter of Jeans ideas.

My results were wonderful, the Lenco is an inexpensive turntable that makes great music for little money. My comments were supportive of Jean and I take no credit for his thread.

As with all things high end, the performance differences seldom justify the price. For me, LP is my main source of listening as my library is mostly vinyl and the Walker is so far beyond any other LP playback source it defies logic.

What got this thread off center were comments that appeared to support the idea that speed accuracy was so important that it surpassed the "whole package" approach. I'm not saying speed accuracy is not important, but not so important that it can overcome all the engineering that make up the turntable package.

Having owned two Basis Debut Gold (Model 4 and 5) with both AirTangent 10B and Graham 2.2 arms with exact same Koetsu RSP I'm using with the Walker, I can state without doubt, the Basis is speed accurate enough to provide state of the art sound.

The Walker package is superior to the Basis and although the Walker is more speed accurate, it is only part of the picture.

An "equal" test is not possible between a Walker and a Lenco or Technics as the Walker arm is integrated into the foundation and design of the table. Any comparisons would be between the Walker package and whatever package was chosen for the other table.

Testing is fine and I will support it, but having heard the Technics tens of dozens of times, I know exactly what it sounds like. If anyone want's to challenge the Walker in a "dollar for dollar" match against the Technics, I concede defeat before the test begins. Just the same as Rockport must concede defeat against the Walker as it costs three times the price.

Accurate speed measured over what interval(s)? This might make all the difference!

Raoul, since Albert is such a fine gentleman, make sure you bring him and his friends a case of the finest tequila: Patrón.

http://www.patronspirits.com

***

Raoul's crossing the border!

my humble take on this is that in fact speed accuracy IS INDISPUTABLY as important as it "seems," and the issue at hand is not the table/arm/cartridge combination, but the table ONLY, and it's one and only function, which is to maintain as stable a speed as is possible to reproduce the time domain of the LP. to compare this to specifications of amplifiers is comparing apples to horse apples IMHO. the key is IMPLEMENTATION (as in all things), and the walker had better be optimized in this respect to justify it's price. to hear a properly implemented/optimized technics, lenco or garrard with the same arm and cartridge would be preferred, and i guess that's where things are going. this is getting exciting!

i would add that jean's lenco thread did not require endorsement by anyone, it has stood on it's own merits and by his (significant and ongoing) efforts since day one. not trying to be overly contentious, but that needed to be said. credit where credit is due.

Certainly I'm up for it, I like tests.

Your welcome to fly here and bring whatever equipment you wish. I have a nice high end system to do the audition and a support group of audiophiles to help us physically move things.

If you don't like my equipment, one of my members must have a speaker you approve of, including Vandy 5's, Kharma Exquisite 1D-E, Wilson Maxx, Wilson Watt 6, Sound lab A-1, Sound Lab A-3, Magneplanar 20's, Magneplanar 3.6, Aerial 10B, and from the "do it yourself" crowd, multiple horn systems powered with SET amps.

How far away are you?

Hi Albert: I think that I can't explain me or you loose my point:

+++++ " " A Walker DD system beats a Walker belt drive system .. " +++++

That's all.

I'm not a fanatic of the " numbers ", I only take care about where they are critical and in a TT that number is critical and ( EVERYTHING THE SAME ) push the balance in favor of the TT with the best number. Simple as that.

Albert, you post:

+++++ " Many pieces of equipment that are excellent on paper do not necessarily sound excellent. " ++++++

and I agree with that, but I insist: that's is not the point. Sorry.

I don't want to open the door for a direct comparison between the Walker an a SP 10MK3/MK2 up-graded. But we can do it, if you want.

I have two plinths/frame for my Denon's/Technics, one from solid green marble ( 40+kg ) and one from solid natural onyx ( same weight ), btw: beautiful frames.. I have a neumatic suspension footers for those plinths. The plinth function not only like the frame TT but it is the arm board too. I can mount any of my SAECs tonearms or I can do and additional hole for other tonearm. I have a vacuum hold down platter mat for the Technics TT. You have a KRSP and I have another one. Maybe some one that is reading this thread can borrow us a SP 10 MK3, but if not the SP 10 MK2 is ok.

Albert tell me how, when and where do you want to do it.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

OK then, your comments are based on specification posted by Technics, builder of the SP10 MK3.

If that number is correct, perhaps speed accuracy is not as important as it seems.

Or perhaps the whole turntable and arm package is more important than just speed accuracy, assuming Technics has stated speed accuracy properly.

Many pieces of equipment that are excellent on paper do not necessarily sound excellent . For instance, Technics also builds some integrated amplifiers that have amazingly low distortion specification but sound pretty dismal against tube based amps from Atma-Sphere, VTL or Audio Research, all of which have higher distortion numbers.

I have owned several direct drive tables and auditioned the Technics hundreds of times when I sold them. I was never impressed enough with their performance to consider them for state of the art playback. Of course I was going by sound, not the specification sheet.

Dear Albert: I think that I don't explain the speed issue in a right way.

+++++ " : ACCURATE AND HIGHLY CONSTANT SPEED ( 33/45rpm in the short and long run ).

Here the idler/DD TT's beats any belt drive design ( including the Walker ). " +++++

If I can remember the Walker speed accuracy is 0.002%: a really splendid figure, but the SP 10M2 is half that of the Walker: 0.001% and the SP 10MK3 is only 0.0001%.

I agree with you on your statement: +++++ " The Walker represents the pinnacle of this engineering... " +++++

But that is not the point. My point is very simple:

" A Walker DD system beats a Walker belt drive system ", if only for the better speed accuracy of the DD design.

Albert, this is part of what I already post and maybe you loose to read:

+++++ " This single subject: " ACCURATE AND HIGHLY CONSTANT SPEED ", ( where everything the same ) do the difference between a belt drive system against a DD system, where the DD system beats the belt drive system. " +++++.
You can note: ( where everything the same ).
Your statement that the Walker is superior to a standard Lenco is out of place: of course that is superior.

I know that I don't have your wide experience with hundreds of TTs ( like you say ) and my reference to Walker TT was not against the Walker or against any Walker owner like you. As I told you my point is a simple one.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

How many Mexican pesos is a Walker?

Here the idler/DD TT's beats any belt drive design ( including the Walker ). I own four belt drive TTs, three SP 10MK2, two DP80s and one DP75 Denon's. In the past I was owner of: SP10MK3 and a Denon DP 100 ( please don't ask why I don't own today these two TTs. I don't want to remember it ).

Raul, although I frequently agree with your writings, we are very far apart on this topic.

Having owned multiple direct drive and idler wheel drive design turntables, I am aware of their strengths. No question their speed accuracy is uncanny, but there are a few exquisitely engineered belt drive turntables that overcome this technical obstacle.

The Walker represents the pinnacle of this engineering, maintaining flawless speed accuracy and control that equals the idler wheel models while maintaining such virtues as adjustable air suspension system, air bearing non-resonant platter and integrated linear tracking arm with adjustable pressure air bearing.

Understand, I was one of the first to compliment Johnnantais and throw my support behind him when his Lenco thread was begun. In spite of my admiration of the Lenco and Garrard idler wheel designs, there is no contest between these and the Walker.

We can banter back and forth on this all day, so I will just say that you're entitled to your opinion and that I don't share your view. This, based on my own experimentation over the years with hundreds of turntables.

Dear friends: I think that Johnnantais is right in many ways and I agree with him in many issues.

His Gallileo, Bacon, etcc references, are a way to dramatize a fact that the 99% of the people " can't see it " or does not " want to see it ".

Opalchip do serious statements about what exactly is the job of a TT for to know what can we expect from a TT : +++++ " What exactly does a turntable do? It's a platter spun by a motor that we put a record on. The ABSOLUTE BEST thing it can do is turn at an accurate, highly constant 33rpm and not impart any vibration to the lp. It cannot "add" anything positive to the playback. " +++++

Any one of you have to agree with those statements, especially: ACCURATE AND HIGHLY CONSTANT SPEED ( 33/45rpm in the short and long run ).

Here the idler/DD TT's beats any belt drive design ( including the Walker ). I own four belt drive TTs, three SP 10MK2, two DP80s and one DP75 Denon's. In the past I was owner of: SP10MK3 and a Denon DP 100 ( please don't ask why I don't own today these two TTs. I don't want to remember it ).

The idler/DD servo TTs are dead steady on the rpm issue. The motor in the DD TT is really a tour de force, at least in the DD models that I own.

The pitch in the music reproduction in a home audio system is the most critical subject for a right musical appreciation. Any small variation in the TT speed change the pitch and change totally what we are hearing.

The problem in the belt drive systems is in the belt drive it self ( not in the small motors that are using ), all kind of belt drive materials: kevlar, nylon, silk, rubber, etc., have the tendency to stretch ( every single second that are in use ), is this tendency to stetch what do almost impossible to mantain a constant speed. The DD drive servo TTs don't have to fight with this critical issue and don't have that little speed variations that the belt drive have: especially in the short run, that is where really is important. Now, it is not only the stretch tendency on the belt drive system what is a critical issue there are other critical issues in a belt drive systems, like: changes in the room temperature, changes in the room humidity, the pulley and platter friction with the belt, the pulley/platter build imperfections, etc...

This single subject: " ACCURATE AND HIGHLY CONSTANT SPEED ", ( where everything the same ) do the difference between a belt drive system against a DD system, where the DD system beats the belt drive system.

Johnnantais don't have to go so far away: the best TT system is the Rockpor Sirius, this 70K+ " baby " use a DD system: wonder why? Don't you think that if the " experts belt drive system " was the better Rockport would had choose it?

The three belt drive systems TTs that are in my current audio system are very good on the speed issue but aren't perfect: I'm checking every day and some days after/before every listen record the speed variation.

There are many issues of the why's many of us and all the " reviewers/experts " are using belt drive systems: but this situation is only circunstantial and does not means that the belt drive system is better than the direct drive system, because it's not.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

About five years ago, I decided to make the jump back to vinyl. I've got lots of old records that I was never able to part with, and with reading all that was said on these forums, decided to give it a shot.

After a lot of reading, I came to the conclusion that the majority here say, belt drive was the way to go.

I bought a Thorens TD125, and worked on it for three years, off and on, and basically liked it. Went to all the Thorens sites, lots of learning and tinkering.

One thing that always stood out to me, was that the speed stability was somewhat lacking. I cleaned, oiled, bought new belts, but could see by the strobe markings that it wavered no matter what I did. I'm not golden-eared, but I could also hear it on certain passages. Did I get a bad TD125? Perhaps

I loved the sound of vinyl, I still wanted to play records, yet I was unable to make it sound right.

After reading the stuff about DD tables, I took a risk. I bought a used Technics SL1200 MK2 off ebay. I knew that a lot of these have been abused as DJ units in clubs, but the pictures looked good, and the guy selling it seemed believable.

It is the best deal I've ever made. The only tweaks I've made, are the ones that Kevin at KBUSA recommends, the sorbothane footers, and the fluid damper for the tonearm. There's a power supply add on that I've yet to get, as the speed stability is perfect, and I question whether I need it.

I'm not telling anyone to do anything, or knocking any other equipment. This was MY experience getting back into vinyl.

Used SL1200 $200
fluid damper $149
footers? Can't remember, but reasonale

Long live glass and particle board!

Hey Jean des Nantes,

You clearly didn't read what I wrote, or understand it to the extent you passed your eyes over it. And don't try to tell me my Kuhn, or my history of science, you dillatante.

Anyway, I am gratefully humbled. I had though *I* was pompous and long winded!

R-xxxx, it was not "experts" who discovered the world was not flat, you miss the point AGAIN: they were, by definition, cranks, since they went against the orthodox opinion which existed at the time. In Galileo's day, the "experts" spent a lot of time and effort working out complex epicycles to fit the observed movements of the stars in a scheme which placed earth at the center. Then the cranks Galileo and Copernicus came along and told them that all those years of belief and effort were wrong (sound familiar?), that if you placed the sun at the centre of the universe then all the movements made sense. It was not only the Church which opposed Galileo, but nearly the entirety of the scholars of Europe. In fact, Copernicus was so afraid of the battle his theory would bring with it that he waited until the end of his life to publish it. And you do not address in any of your posts the issue of an unexamined assumption, and science is FILLED with unexamined assumptions, something which would make scientists nervous should it ever get out. This might lead to a little thing called "independent thought", which would go a long ways to dimishing the unquestioned power of the "experts". Another word for "unexamined assumptions" is "paradigm", and a profound shift in science (or any area of thought) caused by a re-examination and change of fundamental assumptions is called a "paradigm shift". As to Bacon's dicta being quaint, a lawyer's trick, sophistry to defend routine scientific actions denying the results of experiments (often by simply cvalling them "anomalies" and sweeping them under the carpet) to support cherished theories contradicted by them; the increasing reliance on theory with no means of testing them (18-dimensional space which is as relevant and testable as the number of angles which dance on the head of a pin) is an example of the degeneration of science, not its evolution. And as to comparing myself to Galileo and others, this is called an "example", a "precedent", a "comparison". I do not equate myself with Galileo, we're talking record players here. The point is the case of Galileo and Darwin are examples everyone knows, so they understand what I'm talking about: one fellow everyone is now familiar with, says everyone is wrong, and is later declared right, as everyone knows. Should I instead refer to "Dweeble Wainright" who invented a better dough for donuts to make the point for fear someone like you will come along and accuse me of thinking I rank with them? Are we then to always avoid referring to well-known figures in ANY discussion for fear we will be charged with megalomania? No more referrals to Shakespeare in a discussion of literature, because this means you are equating yourself to him, and thus showing your megalomania. Can't have that, so let's make the process infinitely longer, research nobodies no one ever heard of, spend hours and pages of text explaining them, and THEN use them to make a point. These tactics are a standard argumentative device peddled out by scientists and scholars to discredit those whose ideas they don't like: nail them on another cooked-up issue, the history of science is filled with such manipulations. Either you're too dumb to understand the concept of precedent, or you are deliberately trying to represent me in a negative light, and damn that old concept integrity and fairness anyway. As to observation being theory-laden, theory is derived from observations, without observation and controlled experiment we're back to believing horses are impregnated by the wind. There IS no science without observation and experimentation, without them, then it is simple blowing wind, which is my point. In the case of Lencos, they must be compared. And nowhere did I write that the very fact "experts" agree on something is the reason they must be wrong, I used the EXAMPLE of "experts" agreeing on something having been shown to be wrong to suggest they might be wrong in the case of belt-drive, as I have tried to make clear, and thought I HAD made clear, several times: "Did ANY of these companies say "Gee, I think I'll try out a Garrard 301, and then a Technics SP10 MKII, to decide for myself which approach I should adopt"?, or did they say "Gee, even if they're better, the cost of manufacturing would be too high and the project too complex and intimidating"? or finally and most likely "Idler-wheel, direct-drive, say what?"." The same happened with tubes long ago when solid state was deemed superior and tubes largely abandoned until, hey, someone actually decided to go back and listen and found it actually DOES sound good!" Jeez, is it someting in the water, this is turning into a nightmare!

So does this mean that I believe record players are as important as Galileo's work?! Nowhere did I write this, does no one understand the concept of a comparison?!!! Well, let's answer this anyway, because probably the concept of a "rhetorical question" has also faded from the degenerating mind of Western citizens: NO, of course not, but science is science, and evidence (AND logic, an illogical theory is a wrong one) is ALWAYS stronger than theory, meaning if an experiment shows a theory to be false, then that theory is false, this is called "integrity", or do you believe that the principles of science are only to be applied in larger issues of biology and astronomy, but not in other fields of research, and not in lesser points in those very areas of research, or indeed anywhere outside the control of famous scientists?

Finally, if the humble Lenco can humiliate so many highly-regarded belt-drive turntables, as it does when someone actually sits down for a fair comparison, then one must find the reason why (or you could not rock the boat, support the status quo, and sweep the evidence under the carpet, since that Bacon was so primitive in his simplistic beliefs, NOW we're talking modern routine scholarship and science). The Lenco is not a totally stupendous piece of engineering like Albert's Walker is, or indeed even most of its "competitors", in fact it is quite humble, so what can be the reason? This may not be of cosmic significance, but it is EXACTLY what makes science so fascinating, which is why I refer to science so much in promoting the Lenco Challenge, it makes the whole project fascinating and fun, you do understand the concept of fun and fascination don't you? It allows even us little spuds to dabble in and learn about the scientific process, or are you against the general population using their own heads and their own hands to participate in the scientific process to come to their own decisions, rather than allow themselves to be led by the "experts," who will charge them with megalomania should they have the temerity to think they too can apply fundametal principles and come to their own understanding? NOW we get to the theory part you think I've missed in my simple-minded megalomania (or more likely, any port in a storm in an argument): observation shows the Lenco is far better than its simple construction indicates, and what differentiates it from the belt-drives is its idler-wheel system, a system which ruled until belt-drives came along. Now while I am NOT saying this is of cosmic significance, I AM saying that principles are principles, and if evidence at whatever level shows a dominating theory to be wrong, then, especially in an arena which allows so many to participate (this hobby is filled with DIYers, and record players are easily accessible, no lab equipment other than a stereo system required), we should encourage these experiments, not try to suppress them. Should education be limited to children, or are we allowed to continue to learn as we grow older? Or will the scientific world shake and quake becaue audiophiles are tinkering in their living rooms and thinking?!

To the person who initiated this thread, I apologize for hijhacking this thread, I had no idea when I dared to state that since experts in the past had been wrong then experts now might be wrong I would be opening such a HUGE can 'o worms, which I suppose explains why so many (as Copernicus in his day....ooops, not allowed to use "examples", so Frederick Gorbudarian in his day) decide to simply keep quiet. As I wrote far above, I do love analogue (evidently) and applaud your choice in moving ahead to find out for yourself (yes being active in an experiment to come to your own decisions) to see if vinyl rates. I hope this starts a whole new area of enjoyment for you, I know I never stopped loving the old vinyl. Enjoy.

>>Ummm, I've been meaning to ask, why do you persist in calling me "Johnmathis", is it some secret code?<<

Maybe he knows something about you that hasn't been outed for the rest of us.

Apologies to the OP, by the way. My $.02? Big diference between plug and play and tweak/diy/hunt/no dealer support. If you like the latter sort of thing, there are lots of options, but it's a big commitment and involves at least as much obsession and fiddling as listening to music. If that's your bag, go for it. Otherwise, get a Rega P3, get it set up with care by someone who knows what they are doing, and then start tapping your toes, 'cause vinyl sounds great.

Johnxxxx,

I have no doubt your Lenco sounds great. I absolutely agree that blind A/B comparison, done with care and patience, is the most probative way, though hardly foolproof, to decide what one is likely to prefer as a purchase for long term listening.

How did I miss your point? Was it just that the experts may be wrong? Duh. Did I say anything to the contrary?

Your comparison of yourself as an idler wheel crank to Galileo as a heliocentrist crank and Darwin as an evolutionist crank are absurd and ridiculously pretentious. Yeah right, idler wheel vs. direct drive vs. belt drive is a matter of revolutionary science, and you are a revolutionary scientist.

Moreover:

"empirical science, rests on experiment and observation" is not a definition (any logician could tell you that). Looking out the window to see whether it's raining or not is based on experience and it ain't empirical science.

Your Bacon quotation is pretty, and back in the day, it was important in the effort to overthrough scholastic appeal to authority as the gold standard in all matters of inquiry, but its idea of neutral collection of observational evidence was shallow, and hasn't been taken seriouly, except as a target of criticism, by theorists of science for a very long time. Obervation itself is theory laden -- that's the term of art in science studies -- so no observation is a pure foundation for theory.

The Galileo case illustrated the point perfectly. He didn't prove the Earth revolved around the sun. he showed how how one interprets various 'pure observations" will depend upon one's presuppositions, and that various bits of evidence cited by geocentrists against heliocentrism depended for their evidential force on question-begging assumptions involving the stationary character of the Earth. When it comes to "proving" the Earth does move, you need not just observations, but theory as well, and the former can never itself prove the latter. This point can be made as a matter of logic, by the way, which I dare say I understand better than you. If you knew any logic or actual theory or history of science, you wouldn't be so dogmatic in the absolute value of your "observations". And you'd realize that your own conviction that the Earth revolves around the sun isn't based on observation, but on appeal authority -- which is as it must be in most things. Knowing which authorities to trust is an essential epistemological skill, not reducible to some rule, and certainly not a matter of pure observation.

Oh, and yeah, some equipment sounds better than others. Duh. Your jumping up and down and screaming that the sky is falling doesn't make it so, however.

Albertporter....the voice of reason! While I enjoy a good debate and have learned a great deal, thank you for bringing this thread back around to my original question. I found a MMF-7 new for 926.00 including cartridge. I decided to buy new so that I will not have to wonder if my used TT is at it's best. I think a TT at this level can give me a true sampling of what vinyl is supposed to sound like. This TT and a shiney new record should be able to tell me if I want to go forward or not. The entry level price is about double what I thought it would be. As related to my other gear purchases, double seems just about right! Thanks for the help.

I think you guys may be running the risk of crushing the inertia of the original poster, who simply ask if he should venture into the world of vinyl.

Personally I am slow to suggest that move to anyone who is not already into LP's, its a big commitment and some feel the reward is worth the effort and others do not.

I have multiple sources including CD, SACD, FM tuner, LP and open reel tape. All have merit, but without question my favorite is LP, as it represents the best balance of reproduced music quality and availability of software.

If ABSOLUTE quality were the only issue, master tape dubs played at 15 IPS and 30 IPS on an open reel Ampex 351 is the clear winner, beating ALL turntables regardless of make or design.

That being said, I have owned most of the big names in turntables, including the Lenco, the Gerrard and the Walker. In my opinion, this discussion should center around bang for the buck / best performance.

The Lenco is a killer little table for NO MONEY. I bought mine at EBAY for about $100.00, added a Decca arm and Shure cartridge and had amazing sound for very little investment.

I did eventually sell this rig, not because it was not good, but because I was getting better results from my Walker and my open reel.

Open reel would be a great alternative if you could assemble a decent sized library of music. I will be lucky if I wind up with 300 to 500 titles before I run out of options. That being said, I enjoy my open reel, it's an important part of my high end system and serves as a reference to keep everything in perspective.

On the other hand, a young guy might have trouble finding ANY open reel tapes that appeal, unless he's into Jazz or Classical.

Great LP's are still being pressed and my Walker is better than many of the original tapes of this same music. The master dubs I have are the ultimate quality and the best LP's (45 RPM) offer about 75% of the quality of my best master tape dubs.

The Lenco may not equal this ultimate ($32K) table, or the VERY limited master dubs, but amazing quality at NO MONEY. The investment factor in a new format for a young guy is a big factor. So when we Audiogoners recommend a product to a newbee, remember to keep his investment low and safe until he can decide if this is really the way to go.

He may listen for three months, get bored with what's available and go back to strictly CD.

If it's fun and he can find software that makes him happy, shows what the format can do and connects him to the magic the world of analog can offer, we may have a convert.

R-whatever, you miss the point as so many others, the experts of any given time were overthrown by what were perceived as cranks in their day, as is necessarily so, which were only in hindsight recognized as correct. Galileo was the crank and all those who taught the sun revolved around the earth were the experts. Darwin was the crank and all those who believed in instant Creation were the experts. If you only exercised that over-used and under-defined concept "logic" you might have seen this. As to under-defined science, I've defined it many times, it's really not very complicated, science, which is to say empirical science, rests on experiment and observation. In turntable terms, this means comparison and listening. Too complicated for you? Here's a litle primer from the days when the modern concept of science (as opposed to blowing wind) was being developed: "There is one science, he says, more perfect than others, which is needed to verify the others, the science of experiment, surpassing the certainty, however strong the reasoning, unless experiment be added to test their conclusions. Experimental science alone is able to ascertain what can be effected by nature, what by art, what by fraud. It alone teaches how to judge all the follies of the magicians, just as logic can be used to test argument." (Robert Bacon) In modern terms, take one Lenco and one high-end belt-drive and place them in the same system, plug them in, and listen and compare. Sorry, I can't make it any simpler than this. Is there a right or a wrong? Would you say that it is wrong to assert that a Galibier is better than a Project Xpression? Is there no difference in quality, no superior system? No? Then I think I'll go shovel some coal in my steam-driven 10-ton car, "combustion engine", kooky idea!

Hey John-whatever. You have gone well into the range of crankhood. Stop whipping out the overworked and under-defined term "scientific", and stop exploiting the piss-poor inference from "the experts used to think P but now we know that's wrong" to "the experts now think that Q so it must be wrong too." The experts can (famously) be wrong, but the fact that the experts agree on something is hardly a reason to think it's false!!! After all, it was the experts who in the end figured out the world was not flat, and it's only cranks on the margins who now disagree (loudly, and citing, e.g., when the experts agreed there was ether). Clever does not make a good argument, and zealotry does not make a "scientific" case. Making people laugh is not the same a being right (as if there were a right here).

No shock you have Psychic-organism on your side; the properties of DD and idler must be very different, but they do share unporpularilty among the experts in common. Cranks on the margins love company!

Ummm, I've been meaning to ask, why do you persist in calling me "Johnmathias", is it some secret code?

Johnmathias kicks ass...

Johnnantais
LOL

Hi Mimberman, again I never posted I believed in a "conspiracy theory", I thought I had made myself very clear that assumptions were being made and never investigated, which means no conspiracy of the sort you mean. So, to make it short, when idler-wheel drives were murdered by a concerted effort by the press and industry (and indeed we've seen this before: a concerted effort by the press and industry to promote CDs and murder vinyl simply to increase profits, which actually happened by the press unquestionably accepting the grand claims of the profit-hungry corporations: "Perfect Sound Forever" ring a bell?) because, yes, the profits were larger in building belt-drives because they were simpler to manufacture, and also allowed smaller companies to enter into the fray (i.e. Linn) because they could never hope to start building idler-wheel drives while they COULD attach a small motor to a platter via a rubber band, then it became common "wisdom", as indeed it is largely common "wisdom" today that digital technology is superior to analogue (we vinyl lovers are dinosaurs), that belt-drives were in fact inherently superior to idler-wheel drives and direct drives. This, becoming "common wisdom" or to put it another way, dogma, became the fundamental assumption on which all later work was done. Then, it became simply development work into perfecting belt-drives, because direct drives and idler-wheel drives were simply discredited and "proven" inferior and were not to be re-examined. This is the road tread by all the legends you list. Maybe even some of them did have their doubts, but if everyone wants belt-drives, why argue, sales are assured. In fact, this type of scenario goes on now in all the sciences all the time, with new practitioners of each science being inducted into current dogmas, and never having the imagination to re-examine what has gone before. Case in point from earlier, which was my point: mankind did believe the earth revolved around the sun, until the Greeks came along. This was rectified by Copernicus, who investigated earlier writings thanks to Aristotle's diatribe against the Pythagoreans who believed the reverse. When dinosaurs were first discovered and examined, they were believed to be warm-blooded, which is now a daring new theory. And you can bet that all kinds of current theories will be supplanted by older ones revived by re-examiners.

"...none of these companies have realized what you, in your infinite wisdom have, and moved to DD or idler motors." Classic argument by authority. Given my explanation so far, then it should be clear that they did not realize this because they never questioned the fundamental assumption: belt-drives are superior (and don't deny this is the current dogma and has been for decades). And your "infinite wisdom" remark is just another "argument from athority" in a different flavour, always leveled at those who dare to question "common wisdom", as in "How dare you question all these experts?!" I dare, because I heard. My "infinite wisdom" is my ears, I trust them, and I will not deny my senses or agree 100% with a writer or designer until I've heard for myself and compared (at least, I try to live by this principle). Say what you like, a small low-torque motor is very affected by stylus drag, and a rubber band exacerbates the situation by always reacting and this reaction is not eliminated by resorting to high-mass platters but only lowered in frequency, which is clearly heard if only you would sit down and listen to a proper idler-wheeel drive. The fact that stylus drag grossly affects speed in belt-drives is in fact admitted by these designers, who devise various ways to combat it from multiple motors to the simple use of massive platters. Idler-wheel drives and DDs were designed from the initial point to eliminate stylus drag first, and in doing this, they are superior to belt-drives in various audible ways, and in the case of idler-wheel drives specifically, I believe in every way (not that DDs couldn't be further perfected). In fact, already owning both an Audiomeca turntable and an air-bearing Maplenoll at the time I first tripped over idler-wheel drives, it only took exposure to a tweaked Garrard SP25 (little cheap crappy spud, but idler wheel) to convince me, as it had slam, presence, an intense musicality and bass I never got from my belt-drives, I was convinced.

"So anyone who buys a plug and play or belt drive table doesn't use independent thought? o i c." No, this isn't what I wrote at all: those who buy belt-drives for enjoyment or in ignorance of the whole debate about DD and idlers do not fit this bill, but those who blindly defend belt-drives without having heard a properly set-up idler-wheel drive (argument from authority which is ideology not science: evidence is scientific), or to put it more simply dismiss them out of hand, do fit the bill: they are mental slaves.

"For those who want to exercise a little thing called "independent thought" and who like hands-on experience, then I invite you to try the Lenco Challenge" This is written tongue-in-cheek, but it is also a genuine challenge: test your preconceptions against a reality to see what they're worth, and free your mind. At least, even if you come out of it favouring belt-drives, you'll have come to this decision under your own steam.

And finally, to answer both you and sayles, from people who took up the challenge:

""This evening is the first chance I have had to play with the beastie. I found (it took me a little while) the Origin Live modified Rega 250 that I bought two years ago intending to mount on an Empire 208 if I ever found one. I didn't.
I also found my little used Denon 103D. An hour later we were ready to go. No plinth. I precariously balanced the Goldring on two lead shot filled plwood boxes that I made ages ago to set a pair of Carver Amazing speakers on. The speakers are long gone, but the heavy little boxes thankfully remain. Albert I don't know what TT you had before the Goldring, but my expectations were certainly not high since I have a heavily modified Linn LP 12 with an Ittok arm and Koetsu Black cartridge. I have to say that the Goldring with the lesser cartridge (the Denon 103D at $225, while a very impressive cartridge is no match for the $1,500 Koetsu), unravelled the music and separated instruments better than the Linn with the Koetsu. At first I thought that was hearing over-simplification of passages, but when I started hearing things in the foreground that were either distant on the Linn or very subdued, I knew this was not the case. Separation of lead and backing vocals and clear enunciation of words seemed better on the Goldring. I think I have to switch the Ittok and Koetsu to the Goldring to be completely fair. But then I think that there would be an even greater bias towards the Goldring."

"I am a long time Linnie. I have own LP 12's for 28 years. My current Linn has an Origin Live DC motor and a Cetech carbon fibre subchassis. On a whim I bought a GL 75 and put an Origin Live modded Rega 250 and my beloved Koetsu Black on it. Holy shit, better bass, much better leading-edge dynamics and pretty remarkable imaging. This is all without a plinth. I'm just resting this beast on two lead-filled boxes. I am about to make a decent plinth and see where it goes."

"I STILL haven't built a plinth for my GL 75, OL Rega, Koetsu Black. But I'm playing it all the time. And I get more impressed with every LP. I should mention that I went from thin, model train oil to Mobil 1 grease and then a combination of the last two. My last choice seems to be the best. When I eventually get around to building the plinth it will be on this site. Just listened to Dire Straits' "Brothers In Arms" and Little Feat "The Last Record Album". I'm hearing things that were not there AT ALL on the Linn. Buggeration. Is that possible ?"

"I fitted my old Fidelity Research FR64s, that my Linn dealer condemned for having worn bearings in 1996. Of course the bearings are fine - some people will say anything to sell a tonearm! First cartridge in is my re-tipped Koetsu Black, again mid-80s vintage. I have had a fantastic evening's listening. The Lenco is everything claimed here and more. As forecast by Jean, there is bass in abundance (not a noted Koetsu characteristic), fantastic dynamics, energy, slam, PRaT, call it what you will, and the detail and clarity are stunning. I have been listening to some serious money turntables over the last few months and the budget Lenco beats most of them - I'm not sure yet whether it's better than a Galibier I heard a few weeks ago but it's pretty close. I'll be better able to comment when I put the DL-103 on the FR64. There's no doubt in my mind that the Lenco is preferable to the Teres 265 and 360, Nottinham Spacedeck and Hyperspace, SME 10, Kuzma Stabi and of course my old Linn."

Now all these fellows who took up the Lenco Challenge in a scientific and fun spirit don't sound too disappointed, do they? Take this fellow's example: "Johnnantais, in response to your 02-20-04 posting: I´m the guy who wrote the VA post you quoted entirely without mentioning your source. I just fooled around with my L78 i just used for 78s and reported my findings at this point. Indeed, with the standard plinth and arm. Not very nice of you to accuse me of suffering from the Dogma that´s obviously becoming an obsession for you. But i´m a good sport and i take up the challenge! I´ve been fooling around with Thorens TT for ± 2 years, stuffing them with damping materials, building heavy plinths etc. I´m already mailing with Tjoeb about the Decca arm(I´m living in the Netherlands, they´re round the corner!). And i´m going to make a plinth, MDF, birch multiply, we´ll see. One question, do you keep the original springs? With the foam inside?" Now check out his website at http://members.home.nl/fmunniksma/lencol78.htm

re: Direct vs. Belt -- I have had more than 20 different turntables of all sorts over the last 7 years - I was "collecting" them for a while - until I got married! And here is why I agree with Johnnantais (for the most part):

What exactly does a turntable do? It's a platter spun by a motor that we put a record on. The ABSOLUTE BEST thing it can do is turn at an accurate, highly constant 33rpm and not impart any vibration to the lp. It cannot "add" anything positive to the playback. Unless you believe in voodoo (which is not uncommon here) there are only 3 factors in the performance of a turntable:

1. The degree to which it maintains a constant, accurate speed
2. The degree to which it manufactures and imparts any "noise" of it's own to the lp. More a function of the main platter BEARING quality - NOT the motor type or location. Good electric motors don't make noise and don't vibrate - bearings do! Belt drives are not relieved of having bearings.
3. The degree to which it isolates the lp from external "noise" - primarily acoustic feedback.

The Technics 1200 specs as well or better on factors 1 and 2 as any high-end belt drive ever can or will. And the 3rd factor is easily controlled by the user and the installation as much as by the design of the deck itself. And the SP-10 just blows the vast majority of them away. (The wow/flutter , speed, etc. measurements are all Google-able so lets not get into a debate about that.)

So why do so many people think they need zillion dollar turntables? IMO it's because the zillion dollar decks all have great arms and cartridges (usually matched to each other properly), whereas the older Japanese DD's that you're comparing to usually have only "acceptable" cartridges and for the most part terrible to mediocre arms with no thought applied to which cartridge was put on what arm!

My main table currently is VPI/w SME 309 arm, not a radical $$$ set-up, but by no means a cheap combo - and I don't think it sounds tremendously better than 1200 with the same cartridge mounted and properly set up. A little better sure, but going back to the original poster's question - they wanted to try out vinyl inexpensively. I'm absolutely certain that if a nice clean lp doesn't thrill 'em on Technics 1200, then it wouldn't on a TNT either.

Johnnantais, Point taken. I found you just a bit quick on the hammer to dismiss a lot of previously held research and knowledge as simpleminded belief. True genius and raving lunacy both come from those beginnings (the ones of dismissing...). And look, if I was a bit curt, well tough, but if you feel I personally attached and/or offended you I truly apologize. I mean it. I still feel from everything I’ve seen and heard in TTs that idler-wheels will come to Hifi right after I see pigs fly! Best of luck.

Egad I'm being teased into paroxysms of rage! I will long mourn Listener magazine, and still admire Art Dudley for daring to stand by musicality as identifiable and more important than mere information, even if his Linn LP12 could use training wheels! That's another recommendation to add to the list, a used Linn LP12 for a good price, upgradable later if he so wishes. After idler-wheels, servo-controlled DDs (but good ones like my Sony 2250) and classic 3-point suspension belt-drives like my Scottish Ariston RD11S are my favourites.

Johnnantais,

I thought your posts were interesting if a little labor-intensive to read (and I'm sure to write). I don't disagree with you on principal, and I've been lurking on your Lenco forum now for a few weeks now (but now writing) with great interest. Since I don't have the time to address everything you said, I'll just bring up a few of your points I'd like to discuss:

You wrote that hi-end belt drive makers "DO have it all wrong, a case of the usual orthodox dogma not being questioned and everyone blindly following without re-examination"

So, I'm sure you are intimately aware of the R & D of all of these companies in their decisions to use belt drives, correct?

You were correct in saying that most of the TT makers on the list Judy and I compiled (very tongue in cheek I might add) don't fit into the buget of the entry-level tables we're talking of (let alone most people's bugets at all). I'm not saying that companies haven't in the past tried to sell lesser technologies as better than they are because they want to keep costs down, but I find it very hard to believe that given the high price tags of so many of these players (SME, Nottingham, Brinkman, etc.) that none of these companies have realized what you, in your infinite wisdom have, and moved to DD or idler motors. I mean, these companies are selling so few units a year for such high price tags, that they seem to jump on any even perceived tech edge they can. We weren't making that list as a set of recommedations to the original poster, but rather being smart-asses, and pointing out how unhelpful pshcyicanimals orignal post was. I never made a post saying "belt drive is better than everything else on earth and everything rotates around belt drive". Psychicanimal made a post saying belts were a waste of money and that idler/dd drives were amazing, but didn't give any examples of tables or even say why. It just seemed that was an irresponsible post, and highly unhelpful and even misleading for the original poster. Granted, we're all a bit off of topic now, and this really shouldn't be a debate over DD/idler vs. Belt.

The last point I'll address (so much for being brief, eh?) is in regards to the following comment you made: "For those who want to exercise a little thing called "independent thought" and who like hands-on experience, then I invite you to try the Lenco Challenge"

So you chided R_F_Sayles for unwarranted personal attacks, but it's midly hypocritical then to call anyone who can't be bothered making their own TT (your Lenco project) or who buys a readymade product a "slave" as you put it.
So anyone who buys a plug and play or belt drive table doesn't use independent thought? o i c.

In any case, I enjoy your Lenco project, and I haven't above, nor here, criticized the idea of DD or idler because to be honest I don't know enough about them, I was only chiding psychicanimal for his largely unsubstantiated post. I think you have some valid points, but you're a little heavy-handed/conspiracy theory about it all, no? You honestly believe that all the belt drive biggies are sticking to it because it's cheaper for them? I'm cynical of capitalism, but when you're talking about a record player that cost more than most cars, c'mon!